They did. Witness the resolution of Batman and Superman's conflict within the film itself.

This is just how it works when you're developing a universe of ongoing stories with characters that are going to interact through multiple films/stories. Even in the comics, Batman and Superman, after decades of stories, continue to be at odds sometimes.

It's not confined to DC stories, either. The MCU didn't resolve all of the issues Captain America and Iron Man have had with each other. They've continued to develop them over multiple films, and left the most recent one open ended.

I'm not saying they can't disagree in future films. I'm saying the central conflict should be addressed and these characters don't even talk about their issues with each other.

If the film makers wanted to make a statement about violence, that fight between Batman and Superman was not the way to go. I got many of the themes Zack was aiming for with the movie but not this one. The entire time I just kept screaming in my head "TELL HIM ALREADY! "
"Lex kidnapped my mother, he says he will kill her if I don't kill you. "
"what do I care about your alien mother?! "
"My mother is human, her name is Martha"
Then the Martha flashback happens.
That whole exchange could have been littered throughout the fight.

Despite not being a fan of the reason they fought, at least I would've bought this version a lot more.

If the film makers wanted to make a statement about violence, that fight between Batman and Superman was not the way to go. I got many of the themes Zack was aiming for with the movie but not this one. The entire time I just kept screaming in my head "TELL HIM ALREADY! "
"Lex kidnapped my mother, he says he will kill her if I don't kill you. "
"what do I care about your alien mother?! "
"My mother is human, her name is Martha"
Then the Martha flashback happens.
That whole exchange could have been littered throughout the fight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfgangamadeus

Despite not being a fan of the reason they fought, at least I would've bought this version a lot more.

The name, Martha Kent being human, and the danger weren't the reasons Batman stopped. Not exactly. Bruce had to see the image before him. He had to be in the position of killer, poised ready to deliver the killing blow. He had to see Lois in Martha's former place. The name itself and "Save Martha!"/"You're letting him kill Martha" only made Bruce confused and angry; it triggered his flashback and his rage. However, it wasn't until it was all put together with Lois placing herself between the spear and Clark, and with her, a human, verifying the information that things clicked and Bruce stepped back.

And some of the best fights have mostly silent combatants, not ongoing dialogue.

Curious which fights you're referring to, actually.

And this fight needed dialogue because as has been stated too many times, there was no reason for Superman not to continue talking to Batman even if the later didn't listen. If with his dying breath he can say save my mother then he could have said even more over the previous 15-20 minutes.

The name, Martha Kent being human, and the danger weren't the reasons Batman stopped. Not exactly. Bruce had to see the image before him. He had to be in the position of killer, poised ready to deliver the killing blow. He had to see Lois in Martha's former place. The name itself and "Save Martha!"/"You're letting him kill Martha" only made Bruce confused and angry; it triggered his flashback and his rage. However, it wasn't until it was all put together with Lois placing herself between the spear and Clark, and with her, a human, verifying the information that things clicked and Bruce stepped back.

Sure, but all that dispersed in would've shown Superman attempting to stop a and explain as well as Batman's blind rage.

Superman has more opportunities to say what he needs to say. He doesn't, until the very end. You can't possibly convince me that because he failed ONCE,there was no need to try again. That doesn't make any sense. Him being Superman could have easily made Batman listen to him. EASILY. That's what makes this such an awfully written scene. Stuff that should have happened, and could have happened very easily, didn't happen at all, so they could fight.

Do you mean Superman is inherently skilled or successful at things, so if he did something it would inevitably work? Or do you mean that his reputation as Superman would somehow have facilitated a constructive conversation? I don't think either are true or should be taken for granted. Superman tried to talk to Batman. Superman then tried to demonstrate the futility of Batman's aggressive interruptions. Then Superman realized, with the kryptonite, that Batman didn't heed that warning, because he knew he had a weapon that could kill Superman; thus Superman realizes he has to fight for his life and that Batman has even more reason to be cocky and closed-minded rather than humbled and open-minded.

Consequently, the best bet is for Superman to defend his life and subdue Batman (not kill) to demonstrate that even the kryptonite ploy wouldn't work. As soon as Batman realized that the fight was futile, he would listen. Like the rest of the movie, the fight is about power and powerlessness. Batman won't listen as long as he feels his power rests in forcing the world to make sense -- to keep forcing his plan and his worldview -- and only stops because the way he used to operate (before Black Zero made him reject his former rules of operation as impotent) is presented to him again after he re-experienced the triggering trauma in all of its respects. He doesn't have this epiphany until Lois intervenes, though, and that is something that neither Batman nor Superman could have anticipated.

He didn't say anything more than once because Zack wanted this fight to be Lon and awesome. He wanted to get to that fight more than anything else because that was the title of the movie. He had to force a huge fight in there somewhere.

Yup. The "you don't understand!" trope is used in THOUSANDS of movies. It's a well known plot device to put characters in difficult situations that the realistically shouldn't be in. Snyder used this device because otherwise there wouldn't have been a fight. People are just tip-toeing around this fact.

__________________

Greens

Where the hell does it say that you've got a right to kick down doors, torture suspects, deny medical attention and legal counsel?

Where have you been? Does Escobedo ring a bell? Miranda? I mean, you must have heard of the Fourth Amendment. What I'm saying is that man had rights!

Against supervillains sure. But this guy takes big cuts at Batman that would've taken his head off if his powers weren't depleted ( and he wasn't aware of that). He never even makes attempts for the compassionate approach when he has the time.

Again, he is not morally obligated to take a compassionate approach when the other character is continually attacking him. Superman doesn't always have to beg people to see reason.

Quote:

Superman doesn't even want to fight. He's fighting because Lex Luthor has strong armed him into doing so by kidnapping his mom. In a proper scenario Superman would be looking to bring down Batman for all his unjustified violence and brutality. He is fighting because Lex sent him and he won't talk. If Lex hadn't taken his mom, he might not even have shown up.

Actually he's fighting because Batman attacks him and later, because he's trying not to die as a result of this fact.

He goes TO Batman because Lex has strongarmed him.

I would imagine he would have shown up had Lex not taken his mother, because he flat out told Batman to bury the bat, and not to go to the signal next time. Batman thinks he's baiting Superman with the signal.

If Lex hadn't taken his mother, Superman probably would have shown up anyway, because he spent much of the film investigating, pursuing the truth about, and then attempting to shut down Batman.

Quote:

We still this all the time in the comics about the conflict between them about the different approaches to fighting crime. That's the one with weight to it because not only does it offer commentary on the real world but it also offers some discourse on the clashing methods of enacting justice--it's very philosophically complex and a good reason for two people with such fixed views to fight over.

And the film makes commentary on their different methods and the flaws in those methods. They just don't talk to each other about them.

Their ideology is almost never the reason they actually fight in the comics. It's the reason they disagree sometimes, but not why they're occassionally violent with each other.

Fighting over a difference in the way you try to do good in your world is as silly and destructive as fighting over fear of the other person.

Arguably, Superman's reason for fighting: to protect himself and by extension the life of Martha, is about as good as it gets.

Quote:

That's the thing--both of them are overlooking their own faults and through the result of the fight and actually talking to each other, they realize why they need each other.

Which they realize anyway. They just don't talk about it and spell it out right after their mortal conflict has just happened.

Quote:

Uh...NO. He tried half heartedly once and gives up trying. He had time to communicate when Batman was up in his face but he shoves him away.

Superman basically says with his actions: "I tried to communicate with you. You don't want to communicate and have attacked me. You ARE the violent force I thought you were...fine. I will MAKE you listen".

"NO"?

Kay. Explain to me how my assessment is wrong.

Why does Superman try to reason with Batman initially if not to try to attempt to communicate with him?

Batman does indicate he is not willing to communicate and attacks Superman, so how am I wrong there?

Superman can SEE Batman is a violent force and reacts accordingly, seeking to shut it down (he destroys Batman's initial weapons). Superman obviously tries to make Batman stand down through force after that, so where am I incorrect?

Why does Superman engage in violence if not for the reasons I stated?

Quote:

Then he pushes him up an alley and then rams him up a building. He had numerous times and still didn't communicate. Superman is the violent force. He is an impulsive fool.

He tried to communicate initially. I never said he continued to try to communicate.

Yes, Superman is ALSO a violent force. This is inherent in their characters.

As for "impulsive fool"...offer up a real argument. That's just a label-it means nothing.

Quote:

I'm talking about Superman. He doesn't even want to fight. Hardly a fight to get behind when one of them doesn't want to.

So a fight cannot be compelling because one of the parties doesn't want to have to fight?

Then what does that say about all those fights in the comics when Superman doesn't want to fight, but feels that he has to because innocent lives are at stake? Because that's what this is.

Quote:

Offer up a real argument. That's just a label--it means nothing. And btw I took that from the actual synopsis given by WB about the film.

I'm not allowed to have an opinion now? WB or not, that still sounds incredibly cheesy.

Quote:

Another label. Not a real argument. Watch how the Punisher and Daredevil did it in Daredevil season 2. Both of them vehemently disagree on each other's methods but after fighting they actually talk about it and discuss why each is the way they are.

Couple things. The Daredevil/Punisher scene works because there was just an intense fight, and the scene serves as a cooling off point for the audience as they move into the middle of the story. It's not the third act of a story, where tension needs to be ramping up to the finale.

The Daredevil/Punisher scene also works because one of them is tied up and literally has no option BUT to talk and buy time and try to reason with the other character and the other character doesn't actually want to kill the other one, and there's some time to kill. Hardly the case in BVS, where there's considerably more urgency to the proceedings.

Could they have changed the entire motivation for both characters and the structure of the film? Sure, I guess, but...different approaches. I can't see one of them tying each other up and then having an extended dialogue about their issues, not as they're presented.

Ironically enough, I think a single line of dialogue Batman utters in the middle of the conflict accomplishes rathers succinctly what the exchange between Daredevil and Castle, which is mostly designed to flesh out more of Castle's emotional state and psychology, does in six minutes. Batman literally tells Superman where he comes from, and also indirectly that he feels powerless without his violent methods. The final moments between Batman and Superman serve to establish their similarities and their similar goals as heroes. So while we don't learn where Batman used to go to church, a similar type of information is exchanged.

Economy of dialogue can be a good thing.

Quote:

Even Rebirth did it when Superman goes to fight Batman and they talk about the different places they come from and why they are the way they are. They don't even talk about their problems in this film. That's completely shoved away.

Which issue is this?

Don't know what to tell you. They are not"shoved away", they are shown not to matter at the moment given the grand scheme of things, because there are more immediate concerns.

Quote:

It doesn't but the ideological and philosophical differences go unaddressed between the two characters.

And part of the tragedy of the film involves Batman realizing that he failed this man who could have been an ally, that they were not able to overcome their differences. Their differences aren't unaddressed with the audience, though. Much of the film is spent exploring them, and their various points of view on things. The filmmakers simply chose to do it that way VS having them blurt it all out to each other. It's a legitimate approach.

Quote:

Sure, but that would've been a compelling reason to explore the differences between the two characters. Optimism vs Cynicism. Hope vs Fear. Day vs. Night etc.

I've never argued it couldn't have been handled differently or better in some respects. If they were going to talk, it would have been better to have it when Superman stops Batman, though at that point Batman would have had to try to explain what he was going after, and why he needs it, and that would have sort of torpedoed the third act.

Sure, but all that dispersed in would've shown Superman attempting to stop a and explain as well as Batman's blind rage.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Not only are your words jumbled a bit, but surely Batman's blind rage was already more than sufficiently shown. Not even Superman's apology or Superman's refusal to fully engage with him in a fight gave Batman pause. Thus, Superman's strategy was to defend his own life and to deal with Batman physically before returning to verbal means, because Batman's ability to listen was shown to be dependent on his sense of himself as the alpha in the conflict.

Superman has more opportunities to say what he needs to say. He doesn't, until the very end. You can't possibly convince me that because he failed ONCE,there was no need to try again. That doesn't make any sense. Him being Superman could have easily made Batman listen to him. EASILY. That's what makes this such an awfully written scene. Stuff that should have happened, and could have happened very easily, didn't happen at all, so they could fight.

I never tried to convince you that there was no need to try again, only that Superman chooses not to do so, and tries to use violence to oppose his will, instead of "talking to each other".

And they intentionally show this, and there's a reason for it.

Superman is depicted as someone who tries to impose his will and his power rather than talking things out. It's not the first time he has done so.

And that method simply DOESN'T WORK. It is only when all is almost lost that he tries something else, appealing to Bruce's humanity about the lives of innocents.

I have made it quite clear that filmmakers wanted to show these two doing the wrong thing initially, and being at odds because of their inability to communicate.

You don't have to like that, but continuing to whine about the filmmakers not presenting a completely different vision of the characters than what you would prefer while trying to assess what is actually in the film seems pointless to me.

Superman obviously likely could not have easily made Batman listen to him, as the film actually depicts him being unable to do so.

Yup. The "you don't understand!" trope is used in THOUSANDS of movies. It's a well known plot device to put characters in difficult situations that the realistically shouldn't be in. Snyder used this device because otherwise there wouldn't have been a fight. People are just tip-toeing around this fact.

There's no tiptoeing. What I do see, however, is blatantly ignoring the facts. There is absolutely nothing that indicates there wouldn't have been a fight if only Superman changed his tactics and wording. In order for any changes in Superman's actions to work, the Batman presented throughout the film would have to have been characterized completely differently. You can't say there wouldn't have been a fight if Superman had been able to explain himself clearly because there's no evidence that Batman would ever have listened or Superman would have been able to speak long enough and in enough detail in order to convince Batman to change. Bruce, indeed, didn't understand, and he didn't understand because he had been manipulated and blinded by PTSD-induced rage. This isn't a contrivance of the plot or something magically introduced to make things happen, or rather, not happen. Bruce's inability to listen to or see truth had been a problem throughout the film. Batman choosing brutality and violence over more cooperative and effective methods had been true throughout the film. So what is realistic is relative. In this film, Bruce's established paranoia and rage was realistic based on his psychology and experiences. In this film, Bruce's pliability to Lex's manipulations due to his mental state is realistic. In this film, it was realistic for Batman to not understand the truth and for that blindness to prevent him from listening to anything Superman had to say. It wasn't just the information about his mother's kidnapping and Lex's blackmail that made the difference, in the end. It was Batman...Bruce really seeing himself...seeing the monster he had become. And there's no evidence that anything but that unique set of circumstances would have made a difference.

Yup. The "you don't understand!" trope is used in THOUSANDS of movies. It's a well known plot device to put characters in difficult situations that the realistically shouldn't be in. Snyder used this device because otherwise there wouldn't have been a fight. People are just tip-toeing around this fact.

Even in real life, people often fight because they don't understand and relate to each other well enough .

This isn't rocket science. It's a simple line of dialogue to convey the obvious: Batman doesn't understand. Because he doesn't. It's been used before because it's relatable, and it conveys the concept well. Same reason Daredevil uses "You don't have to do this" in his series.

Just because something has been used a lot in other works and might even be a cliche doesn't mean it's a bad way to convey information.

This isn't a contrivance of the plot or something magically introduced to make things happen, or rather, not happen. Bruce's inability to listen to or see truth had been a problem throughout the film. Batman choosing brutality and violence over more cooperative and effective methods had been true throughout the film.

I'm not saying they can't disagree in future films. I'm saying the central conflict should be addressed and these characters don't even talk about their issues with each other.

And here's the thing. The failure to address that conflict, the failure to overcome their differences and the failure to ally with this person, this is largely what drives Batman to want to be a better hero, and eventually to form the Justice League.

It actually DOES have to do with doing the right or wrong thing, because the movie makes a moral statement about it at the end of the movie.

Nevermind that it is just that, a movie. It's not an actual real life event. Even in real life, people often also make emotional, illogical decisions in the heat of the moment. Or do you think fighting is something caused by level, clear-thinking heads?

There's also a thing called dramatic license. Sad to say, characters do not always do the most logical and prudent thing in a film when doing something else would lead to a more dramatic outcome. That's just the way fiction works.

But hey, since you think it makes no sense that he abandons his attempts to reason and keep talking about how he should be focused on saving his mother, the movie ALSO makes it pretty clear that either Superman has to get Batman's help OR kill him. So actually, Superman fighting instead of asking for help repeatedly DOES make sense according to the film's logic.

If he can't get Batman's help, he also has the option to destroy Batman. He chooses to use violence until the end of the fight.

Lex set a timer, Superman was losing time. This is the woman who raised him. We all saw what happened when Zod threatened her. Clearly he loves his mother more than anything else. But instead wastes time in a brawling match with Batman smh. Superman was dumb. Hell even after the fight, he still let the man who tried to kill him go and look for his mother. Idiot.

Exactly. At that point he doesn't know if Batman is going to snap or not. He could end up killing Martha, letting her die or simply not get there in time and Superman let's him go anyway. It's stupid. Beyond stupid.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc